And she was born in Wales!

[killarney_sailor]

This falls in the category of things you think about when you are out varnishing in the hot Queensland sun. Talked to an older Oz gentleman and he went off on a historic rant about the current prime minister, Julia Gillard. After about two minutes of disparagement he concluded with the remark, "And she was born in Wales". Not sure if his concern was that she not Aussie-born or he has some specific problem with the Welsh.

Anyway, got me wondering how many Canadian PMs were foreign-born - I knew the first one, Sir John A Macdonald was, but it turns out there were three, all in the 19th century - 2 Scots and 1 English (no Welsh!).

Then I thought about the US Constitutional requirement about having to be born in the US to be president. Seems that it creates two levels of citizen. What would be wrong with Arnold running for Pres (not saying that he would be good or bad, just that he is an American citizen and it seems he should have the right); or the woman who used to governor of Michigan who was born in Canada or any naturalized citizen - a citizen is a citizen.

Then I thought about the requirement that you had to be 35 to be pres (remember I am out in the sun, but I did have a hat on). Here there are two totally different possibilities:
a) if you are legal age to vote why should you not be able to run for pres? If Kim Kardashian would want to run the job why should her age matter?
b) the other possibility is that the age should be higher. When the Constitution was written the life expectancy was much shorter so someone of 35 would have been considered quite old (and with any luck - wise). I did a quick check and found that the life expectancy in 1850 (oldest one I found) for white males was 38 years, so 35 is getting up there. Life expectancy for US males now is something like 77 so perhaps the minimum age should be somewhere between 70 and 75. The problems today are all the young pups in their 40's 50's and 60s who want to be pres - they are not old enough and wise enough.

Well, I had my drink and a sitdown, back to varnishing. And please no comments about where Obama was born or what a good idea it would be to have Kim Kardashian with her finger on the trigger.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by killarney_sailor

Then I thought about the US Constitutional requirement about having to be born in the US to be president. Seems that it creates two levels of citizen. What would be wrong with Arnold running for Pres (not saying that he would be good or bad, just that he is an American citizen and it seems he should have the right); or the woman who used to governor of Michigan who was born in Canada or any naturalized citizen - a citizen is a citizen.

The highlight is where your reasoning goes off the rails - a naturalized citizen anywhere is a second class citizen, simply because their citizenship can be revoked. A natural born citizen can only renounce theirs, it can't be revoked.

Originally Posted by killarney_sailor

what a good idea it would be to have Kim Kardashian with her finger on the trigger.

Could she be any worse than Palin? Actually, she'd probably be better since she would just be off partying, getting married, generally being a bimbo and someone responsible would be left in charge (hopefully). Palin on the other hand would actually think she knew what she was doing.

[killarney_sailor]

Correct me if I am wrong, but in Canada can't you have your citizenship revoked only if it was obtained fraudulently? I see that Harper's government are going after people who got citizenship by marrying a Canadian when the marriage is only for the sake of immigration.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by killarney_sailor

Correct me if I am wrong, but in Canada can't you have your citizenship revoked only if it was obtained fraudulently? I see that Harper's government are going after people who got citizenship by marrying a Canadian when the marriage is only for the sake of immigration.

I don't know what all the rules are, I only know it CAN be revoked if you are naturalized. In some places I understand that serious crimes are reason for revocation.

In any case, it can't happen to NBC's so the naturalized ones are at a disadvantage, hence second class.

[bwalker42]

Originally Posted by killarney_sailor

Correct me if I am wrong, but in Canada can't you have your citizenship revoked only if it was obtained fraudulently? I see that Harper's government are going after people who got citizenship by marrying a Canadian when the marriage is only for the sake of immigration.

I thought about that but i'm too romantic and fall way too easy. I would end up actually loving the guy so what's the point if he never loves me back.

I'm only going for a sailor.

[tdw]

Originally Posted by killarney_sailor

This falls in the category of things you think about when you are out varnishing in the hot Queensland sun. Talked to an older Oz gentleman and he went off on a historic rant about the current prime minister, Julia Gillard. After about two minutes of disparagement he concluded with the remark, "And she was born in Wales". Not sure if his concern was that she not Aussie-born or he has some specific problem with the Welsh.

He may well have had problems consistent with spending too much time in the hot Queensland sun ......

Mind you only two minutes of disparagement ? I'm not convinced his heart was in it. Usually these kind of boofheads need a lot longer than than. Should you ever meet him again throw the KEATING word at him. Betcha that provokes a better than two minute spray.

[killarney_sailor]

I must say Aussie politics is more fun than Canadian. The last PM that people really got incensed with was Mulroney ... but don't get me started.

I started this thread to see what people, in particular Americans, thought of the current age and native-born restrictions for president but no one seems interested one way or the other. My own feeling is that anyone who is a citizen of legal age should be able to run -whether they would get elected is another matter of course - as it should be.

[tdw]

Originally Posted by killarney_sailor

I must say Aussie politics is more fun than Canadian. The last PM that people really got incensed with was Mulroney ... but don't get me started.

I started this thread to see what people, in particular Americans, thought of the current age and native-born restrictions for president but no one seems interested one way or the other. My own feeling is that anyone who is a citizen of legal age should be able to run -whether they would get elected is another matter of course - as it should be.

Well I'm not American but my own opinion is that any citizen should be eligible to run for anyoffice in the land although I do think there should be a period twixt citizenship and election, probably a couple of decades. I guess you'd want to prevent the likes of Ruper Murdoch becoming POTUS after abandoning his own country for nowt but his own commercial interests.

Seriously I fail to see how when someone migrates to a country, takes out citizenship and makes it their home for twenty odd years should be barred from public office.

ps - Gillard came here as a child. From memory she was six when he parents emmigrated from Wales.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by tdw

Well I'm not American but my own opinion is that any citizen should be eligible to run for and office in the land although I do think there should be a period twixt citizenship and election, probably a couple of decades. I guess you'd want to prevent the likes of Ruper Murdoch becoming POTUS after abandoning his own country for nowt but his own commercial interests.

Seriously I fail to see how when someone migrates to a country, takes out citizenship and makes it their home for twenty odd years should be barred from public office.

ps - Gillard came here as a child. From memory she was six when he parents emmigrated from Wales.

They aren't barred from public office, only the POTUS. Look what happened to Americas cup racing over "citizenship". It made marriages of convenience look legitimate.

[danjarch]

Originally Posted by killarney_sailor

I must say Aussie politics is more fun than Canadian. The last PM that people really got incensed with was Mulroney ... but don't get me started.

I started this thread to see what people, in particular Americans, thought of the current age and native-born restrictions for president but no one seems interested one way or the other. My own feeling is that anyone who is a citizen of legal age should be able to run -whether they would get elected is another matter of course - as it should be.

I could go all historical on this, things like just how many foreign born citizens were running around, and that many of those had been loyalists. But that has little to do with today. These days, it's not really a big deal. There was some talk about changing it after Arnold Swatznagger got elected governor of California, but that didn't end well.

The age restriction looks almost laughable these days. It more often a question of whether the candidate is to old. Obama in his Late forties when he first ran was considered young.

There are hundreds of old laws that probably should be changed but unless they get media attention then who going to bother with it. In this case it's a constitutional issue. You have to get it though both the house and senate with something like two thirds in support, then it would have to be ratified by three forths of the states. So you'd need 280 representatives, 67 senators and 34 states to change this issue.

It's now a catch 22. You'd need a compelling candidate that was foreign born that had major appeal. But no one would go through the hassle unless the guy announced his intentions. Of course this guy would be allied with one of the parties so it's not likely the other side would go along. By the time the one party built the support needed to change things it's not likely the original candidate would still be as popular.

As always, it's worth bearing in mind that the document you are referencing was written to replace the original constitution that didn't work. Even then a lot of the men that wrote the constitution believed that if they didn't have to rebel against the government again within their lifetimes, then surely their kids would. It doubtful that even in their wildest dreams would they have believed, that some day, a future American would debate the US constitution with a foreigner while both sat in their own living rooms a world apart.

In the end, I like most of my counter parts here in America don't give those two requirements much thought. Most foreign born are second class citizens anyway. Unless they came here as young kids, they always fell slightly outside. So what if they can't be president, they can be anything else. And you can just about name any other position in the various American governments and they have been held by foreign born people.